Bible Archaeology Book Recommendations?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Thanks for the recommendations.

And yeah, I've had my fair share of fundie archeology books and media, just like I've studied from creation science textbooks and learned American history from David Barton et al. There's nothing objective about using the Bible as the means by which you interpret the natural world and history.

[Minimalist]

There's nothing objective about using the Bible

What? I object strenuously!

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

There's nothing objective about using the Bible

What? I object strenuously!

You cut off the rest of my sentence that qualifies that. I'm complaining about the way apologists assume that the Bible is true and then find data in history/science that confirms that assumption while ignoring contradictory data. In other words, using the bible like a pair of glasses (rather poor analogy though).

[Minimalist]

You cut off the rest of my sentence

It's one of my humor techniques. You'll learn.

The bible is "history" in the same way that Tale of Two Cities is "history." Yeah, there was a French Revolution and Paris is a city. Other than that...........

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

You cut off the rest of my sentence

It's one of my humor techniques. You'll learn.

The bible is "history" in the same way that Tale of Two Cities is "history." Yeah, there was a French Revolution and Paris is a city. Other than that...........

One of my humor techniques is pretending to not recognize humor techniques. HA!

[DeeTee]

What? I object strenuously!

You cut off the rest of my sentence that qualifies that. I'm complaining about the way apologists assume that the Bible is true and then find data in history/science that confirms that assumption while ignoring contradictory data. In other words, using the bible like a pair of glasses (rather poor analogy though).

You are assuming that they ignored contradictory data. KA Kitchen's work "On the Reliability of the Old Testament' works through many supposed contradictory thought. OH and we believers do not assume the Bible is true, we KNOW it is.

You seem to ignore the fact that science and history are NOT immune to the sin and corruption that entered the world at Adam's sin. Which means that unbelievers will write both according to their unbelief and not the truth.

They say that history is in the eye of the historian so how can you think that you are getting a complete and honest picture when historians slant their work toward whatever objective/bias they have?

Case in point: I read Mcphersons book on the civil war, I also read Catton's trilogy and I read Foote's work and guess what? Even though they were all talking about the same historical event, none of them had the same slant on the information. Oh they had similar facts that agreed with each other but each one had their own bias and none agreed with the other.

You are dreaming if you think you will get objectivity from secular people. science alone has its own influences that taint the work produced. Theoretical physicists do not agree with each other so how do you think they are being objective and presenting the real story?

In other words you cannot accuse the Biblical apologists (to use your term) of being biased when your own side is doing the exact same thing or worse.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

@DeeTee

How do you "know" the Bible is true? Did you come to "know" that the Bible is "true" without first assuming it's true?

[Minimalist]

In other words you cannot accuse the Biblical apologists (to use your term) of being biased when your own side is doing the exact same thing or worse.

Of course we can because there is plenty of evidence that the civil war actually happened.

When your bible starts talking about the exodus the historical record is totally silent as is the archaeological record. These facts cannot be ignored except by the biblically influenced.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

In other words you cannot accuse the Biblical apologists (to use your term) of being biased when your own side is doing the exact same thing or worse.

Of course we can because there is plenty of evidence that the civil war actually happened.

When your bible starts talking about the exodus the historical record is totally silent as is the archaeological record. These facts cannot be ignored except by the biblically influenced.

Durr durr, the Israelites picked up after themselves. Littering is wrong. That's why they left no trace of their mass exodus. Durr Durr.

[Minimalist]

Did they pick up after their enemies, too? The fucking bible makes a big deal of the "Israelites" fighting with the King of Arad but Israeli archaeologist Yohanan Aharoni found that Arad was an Early Bronze Age town was destroyed and remained unoccupied until the 10th century or the Iron Age. The real "miracle" thus was that the Israelites were fighting fucking nobody!

My dear pal, Arch, will dismiss these facts by claiming that archaeologists merely hate his fucking bible. He is not rational on these points.